More on Risk First, Safety Last!
CategoriesI am forwarding this "Important Message from Helke Ferrie" , with some embellishments, as a follow up on earlier post "Risk First, Safety Last! "to further expose the Health regulation shenanigans.
Chris Gupta
See also: FDA accused of suppressing drug safety information (commentary)
--------------------------------This is an open letter to Prime Minister Paul Martin from Dr. nancy Olivieri, Dr. David Healy and the Canadian Association of University Teachers all of whom are staging a public meeting on January 28th protesting the proposed changes to the Canadian Food and Drugs Act.
From this letter you will see that if those changes go through we would abandon the precautionary principle and all drugs approved by the Health Protection Branch would be assumed to be safe until proven otherwise. And this in the wake of the HRT scandal, the SSRI scandal, and the statin drugs scandal! Frankly, it takes my breath away and I am used to a lot of skullduggery on a daily basis. I urge you to sign this petition and contact Dr. Olivieri's group accordingly: noliv@attglobal.net. I will attend the meeting on January 28th in Ottawa and will be writing a full-length article on the event in this issue for the March issue of Vitality.
Cheers, Helke
..."A key element appears to be the redesign of the federal approach to health and safety regulation in order to create an advantage for industry by means of weaker safety standards.
Of particular concern are Health Canadas proposals to: a) abandon the Precautionary Principle to a narrow risk-benefit regime; b) shift the burden of proof from industry to the public products are presumed safe unless harm is proven; c) speed up drug approvals; and d) allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. If the government abdicates its health protection duty of care, Canadas health care system will not be able to cope with the negative health outcomes. The negative effects of these proposed regulatory changes would also be felt throughout the international community."...
Open letter to Prime Minister Right Hon. Paul Martin
Dear Prime Minister,
We are writing you to express our deep concern with your governments proposal to replace Canadas Food & Drugs Act with a new health protection legislative regime. We have noted a series of changes announced by your new government that reflect the commitment to building a 21st century economy. A key element appears to be the redesign of the federal approach to health and safety regulation in order to create an advantage for industry by means of weaker safety standards.
Of particular concern are Health Canadas proposals to: a) abandon the Precautionary Principle to a narrow risk-benefit regime; b) shift the burden of proof from industry to the public products are presumed safe unless harm is proven; c) speed up drug approvals; and d) allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. If the government abdicates its health protection duty of care, Canadas health care system will not be able to cope with the negative health outcomes. The negative effects of these proposed regulatory changes would also be felt throughout the international community.
Societies need both commercial and guardian functions. But these two types of work are contradictory and are prone to corruption if they stray across either their moral or functional barriers. When the governments in Canada mix trade and industry objectives - like deregulation, self-regulation and privatization - into health protection functions, people are killed. These are the painful lessons from the tainted blood disaster, drinking water contamination, adverse drug reactions, and deadly pathogens in food. Canada has not learned from the Mad Cow crisis in the U.K. Food safety and food promotion functions must not be housed within the same government agency. The federal regulator may have helped the Canadian beef industry economically in the short term by not adopting precautionary measures to stem the spread of Mad Cow disease. However, in the longer run, this lack of attention to safety will cost the industry much more.
The purpose of health protection legislation is to safeguard health and safety, not trade and investment. Government cant regulate to protect health and the environment as the laws of Canada currently require - if it is in bed with the industries it regulates.
A health and safety regulatory agency that puts industry self-regulation for profit (smart regulation) ahead of protecting public health is not moral, wise, or legal. Similarly, direct-to consumer advertising of prescription drugs has only one aim: to promote product sales. Why would the federal government knowingly introduce a policy expected to undermine the sustainability of its health care services?
What kind of society builds a 21st Century economy by exposing those least able to defend themselves - children and future generations - to uncontrollable hazards and unknown risk? This is not the kind of Canada Canadians want. This is not the kind of Canada the world wants. This policy will not only put Canadians at risk, it will destroy Canadas international reputation. The end result will be to brand Canadian products as dangerous. We therefore urge you to instruct your Minister of Health to do the following:
1. Adopt the Precautionary Principle as the basis for a broad, transparent, and independent assessment of risk to protect those least able to defend themselves from health hazards especially children and future generations.
2. Terminate the Health Protection Legislative Renewal and uphold the duty of care in the current Food & Drugs Act.
3. Restore the burden of proof on industry to demonstrate the safety of their product or technology before regulatory approval is granted.
4. Allow full public access to the information upon which federal regulators base approval of a product or technology.
5. Strictly enforce the ban on direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs.
6. Terminate all partnerships and promotional activities so regulatory agencies regulate only in the public interest and not in the interests of the regulated.
Prime Minister, we are appealing to you for moral leadership into the 21st century so that powerful economic interests cannot trump the protection of citizens health in Canada and throughout the world. As the Royal Society of Canadas Expert Panel on GM food said, it is better to err on the side of protecting human and environmental safety than to err on the side of the risks.
Sincerely,
Shirley Douglas, OC Nancy Olivieri, MD David Healy, MD Joel Lexchin, MD Barbara Mintzes, PhD Jim Turk, PhD Kathleen Connors, RN Terence Young Michael McBane
See properly formated letter here!
posted by Chris Gupta on Friday January 16 2004
updated on Tuesday November 22 2005URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/01/16/more_on_risk_first_safety_last.htm
Related ArticlesThe Truth About Hyperbaric Therapy
The Quebec Public Health Insurance System should already cover the fees for Hyperbaric Treatments since summer 2000, but the medical authorities have manipulated the results and conclusions of the study, lied to parents, bypassed the honest researchers and competent doctors , lied in the Quebec medias, even going as far as changing the title and conclusions of the original article as published in the prestigious medical journal ''The Lancet'' in... [read more]
May 05, 2005 - Chris GuptaLondon Slow Food Festival
The slow food is intimately related to the organic food movement - Thought I should alert all London Ontario Canada readers about this upcoming festival. Any one interested in nutritional matters should take every opportunity to support these types of activities. Supporting of the local and regional producers of fruits and vegetables, meats, wines, beer and other beverages is the best way to ensure freshness and influence the movement to... [read more]
October 04, 2004 - Chris GuptaLegalizing the Loss of Freedoms in Canada
..."the government stacked the deck by sending it to the Transport committee instead of Legal and Constitutional Affairs where it belongs, but would have a much rougher ride."... Historically this is a common trick to pass unpopular legislation... We are to take it that the crooks that run the government are trust worthy and there is no need for concern... Gee, if that was the case, then why on earth... [read more]
April 11, 2004 - Chris Gupta
